Sequester Planned Parenthood? Some people sure hope so, and others want NPR defunded. Licking their fiscal chops. At $360M and $150M, though, the real savings would be to eliminate one of the stealth squadrons, loaded with $150M each F-22s. And PP and NPR will continue from private funding where most of their money comes from to start with. But... think of the savings of eliminating the Yonkers red light cameras...zounds!
Let's remember Obama was behind the original concept of the sequester to force Congress' hand on budget matters. A pro-choice president sequestering Planned Parenthood? in Republican dreams.
Hey BB ya got me looking at that Yonkers Ghost Investigators site. They pay their own way and do their stuff on their own personal time and dime. Don't seem too professional though, I mean there are so many normal explanations for seeing a traveling orb of light ya know?
Ya know, Z-Man I had some ghost trouble with my TV last week: the remote wouldn't turn it off. So, I pressed real hard and pointed everywhere north. It finally went off. I put down the remote...and the TV came back on. Do Yonkers Dan Akroyd and Bill Murray make house calls?
My DVD player's been acting real weird at times too. All you wanna do is entertain yourself after a sucky day at work and you can't even do that. I was reading just now the Left is beginning to go after Bob Woodward.
I really wouldn't know what to say besides what I've already said. I now get the Mobile Web on my new TracFone and saw the White House is differing with Woodward's account of who's behind the sequester. When all is said and done I'll take the veteran Woodward's word for it. You know even a few years back when I saw Woodward on TV a few times I said to myself he's too honest, someday he's gonna say something to piss off the Left.
Since this is kinda an abortion blog too you can read on Lohud.com about the recent death of a young Westchester County teacher who died after undergoing a very late-term abortion in Maryland. A recap: she was about 33 weeks pregnant (!!!) and learned a couple weeks before the fetus as we call it had some sort of anomaly so she went to the suburbs of DC and Dr. Leroy Carhart of Nebraska performed the four-day act involving prenatal infanticide. Shortly after that she bled to death in a hotel room and Carhart couldn't be reached by the hospital during her ordeal. Pro-lifers as usual are using the wrong tack here saying he didn't provide enough care and followup after the procedure as if the lifers are now down with such procedures if they're done safely enough. Now I had thought although I'm not a lawyer that an abortion on a perfectly viable fetus at such a late stage and that's handicapped is still murder in the eyes of the law and the other thought occured to me this young teacher would still be alive today if she had simply delivered the child even with the disability. I searched for this topic by going to Lohud.com and typed in the key words "teacher abortion death" in their search engine. As tragic as a disabled child may be that's still a part of Life and I think what went down here was far worse morally and in every other way than simply delivering a handicapped infant. What are your thoughts?
There are too many variables here I don't know the answers to and besides that I will not be judging on morality.
She made an informed decision. From what I read, she had an amniotic fluid embolus and DIC. You can equally have either of those things following a c-section. I didn't see anything outlining what kind of anomaly was serious enough for her to make a decision at 33 weeks. My feeling was that it was mostly likely quite considerable; she apparently had been quite all right with being pregnant for 33 weeks; she didn't change her mind because the sun decided to shine one day.
People will take this and make it into all kinds of bullshit or what have you.
Abortion involves risks including death. Equally does a c-section, a tummy tuck, a gastric bypass, a knee replacement; any invasive procedure.
You make the decision that the benefit of having whatever procedure done outweighs the risks.
Barring outright error, negligence, or malpractice, none of which were mentioned, you pays your price and you takes your chances.
And no, I am not getting into morality and what have you. You have no idea what sort of 'anomaly' made her make such a decision, and until you do, you're going on fantasies.
I'm going on simply what I read on lohud.com. On my last day off I had alot of spare time and remember seeing the headlines in the Journal News at work but didn't have time then to read it so I did all my reading about the case online the other day. Has nothing to do with my interpretations or "fantasies" but the gist I got from lohud was she found out about 2 weeks before the abortion that the fetus had some type of anomaly relating to seizures so again the article seemed to be saying because of this she chose not to bring such a child into the world. You know there has to be a dividing line marking civilization from barbarity and that line's been crossed. We've become a kind of land of atrocities lately what with Newtown and now some of these very late-term abortions. I was pondering too as a Catholic priest or any kind of priest or minister when a person dies during the commission of a grave mortal sin or shortly thereafter what do you say? not easy.
I also learned from the articles there are only about four late-term abortionists in this country and seems to me the msm makes them out to be heroes, types of pioneers and frontiersmen in the land of reproductive rights. I don't see any difference however in such very late cases between what Charles Manson had done to Sharon Tate's unborn child and what they're doing here. I mean you couldn't outright kill such a handicapped or anomalous fetus after it's been delivered so we still have this absurd location of the fetus standard. I've heard it said too that out of all the industrialized nations in the world the U.S. has one of the most radical and extreme social and legal policies regarding abortion. Anyway reading about all this it was all quite shocking:)
You can't blame Republicans, BB. They've been too busy with decimating social justice and personal freedom to worry about things like jobs and the economy.
In the 4 years since Obama was first elected, the stock market has risen from 6,547 to an all time record- 14,547. ..and the Koch brothers still think he is bad for business.
14,547 isn't real. NASDAQ made that up because they're a tool of the left wing syndicate conspiracy to make it look like Obama isn't destroying all that's great and holy about America with his socialist agenda.
"People who can't admit facts because they disrupt their personal version of reality."
Actually that's not true, I gave Obama points for his Newtown speech remember? but realistically speaking the facts don't always go his way. Probably true of most presidents Saty, I mean wouldn't it be unusual if the facts always went his way or any president's way? Woodward has pointed out that Obama was behind the whole idea of the sequester in the first place so is this just Woodward's version of reality too?
Being behind an idea, as you know, is no guarantee of it becoming any kind of reality.
Both parties voted for this; both take the responsibility for what we've got; Republicans continue to hold the country over the fire to protect half a million people who make more money than the rest of us.
Obama got his tax hikes on the Rich during the fiscal cliff days with John Boehner now he says they can pay just a little bit more. A wee bit more, just a pinch more...I keep coming back to he has a definite psychological fixation on the Rich.
As do the Republicans, who are entirely prepared to roast 310 million people to keep those rich people rich.
No matter how bad things get, no matter how awful the situation is for millions of people, the Republicans just keep preaching on how we need to protect those rich folk.
Obama is. I think the POV that we should tax the rich more is a valid one and I also think the conservative position that we shouldn't punish success through confiscatory taxation is also valid. We can have that conversation but Obama IS obsessed with the issue. That's pretty much approaching a psychological fact in his case:)
Maybe we can posit that they're both fixated. I think Obama needs to lay his cards on the table and say look I have a moral problem with wealth. It would explain more where he's coming from, would be more honest. Traditionally there have been some philosophers, Rawls, who seem to hold that position, that wealth in and of itself is somehow unethical if it's not redistributed in order to benefit the rest of society so why can't Obama be upfront about this? Are you saying Obama has no philosphical underpinnings on the issue, that it's just a little mathematical problem to him?
I'm saying that it bothers me that you don't ever seem to think that the Right is equally if not more so. And if at all compared I would say it's worse to be protecting half a million at the cost of 310 million than to be trying to help out 310 million by asking half a million to put up a little extra.
But that's the thing, Boehner agreed to that little extra during the fiscal cliff talks remember? Obama should've been happy with that for the time being but he wants more revenue. Somebody gives you something and gets flak for it then you want more, many would call that a fixation.
I mean, numbers are numbers. The way I understand it, Ryan's budget doesn't balance anything, but DOES drop the tax rate on the most wealthy from 39 to 25. It also cuts deep into programs that benefit the poor.
Here you have two totally polar opposite groups, the Republicans and the Democrats and I see no hope for common ground here. Republicans generally agree taxes should be lowered not raised and Democrats generally more often than not say they should be raised to produce revenue. Well that's like night and day, in a way it reminds me of the abortion debate and so the question becomes should Democrats move in the Republicans direction or should the Republicans move in the Democrats direction? I thought that's why we have two parties.
I never did understand why they used the Word Sequester. It doesn't fit with the Standard Definition of that Word. I still feel like I should look it up again and see if I can figure out exactly what they mean. I know that it refers to cuts and they have to do their Cuts somewhere, yet no matter what they choose. Somebody Screams. I mean, gee, they are even making a huge issue out of Closing the Post Office on Weekends. I guess they think that Cutting Major Medical Programs would be preferred.
Planned Parenthood is too much of a Pro-Choice Group and that which is Controversial should not be Funded by the Government. Instead, let those who agree with it make Voluntary Donations.
Come to Think of it, they are making a Huge Deal about the White House Tours as well and I have already heard of some of the big Money Guys offering to make Donations. Would Charging the Public be really such a Horrible Crime? Or again, would you prefer that they Cut something that is essential to our Lives? Just what part of America is in Serious Debt do people not Understand?
Yeh, the NPR could also be Defunded. Since Government Funding of Media related stuff creates Bias, Private funding is better. At least then what ever Bias there may be will be coming from the Opinions of the Public and not the Government.
Ok, now I've Read the Comments. Abortion again, Huh? We've been over that a million times and all of the Regulars already know the positions of each other and I still agree with Z-man. All I want to add is that, believe it or not, there are those who will adopt Babies that have Handicaps, yet Pro-Choicers keep Ignoring the Adoption Option and pretending that it does not exist.
The Basic problem is that "Reproductive Rights" are too often Valued far above "the Right to Life". Once again, for the Millionth time, Politically Speaking, this issue is not about Morality, but about RIGHTS. It's also about Freedom, yet the Freedom of Who, the Mother, or the Baby?
BB, Airports are Generally just a part of the Private Sector that the Government should not be involved in Funding. Private Airlines are going to do what they need to in order to Keep Things Safe or they will lose Business and yes, sometimes Private Sector things go out of Business. It is not the Government's Place to always step in and Prevent this from Happening.
Satyavati, "Republicans continue to hold the country over the fire to protect half a million people who make more money than the rest of us."
Yes, they Protect the Job Producers. The fact that these are the Life Blood of our Economy is the Thing that Democrats just don't get.
Obama is Fixated on that which does not Work. Republicans are Fixated on something that has the Potential to help our Economy. Democrats and Socialists will say that Republicans are Protecting the Rich, yet in Reality, they are Protecting Jobs and the Economy. If "the Rich" can not Provide Jobs, then this hurts everyone, not just the Rich.
Economic history is not on your side. Half a million people are not the 'lifeblood of the economy' and they are not job producers.
If this were the case, we wouldn't be in this situation; the monstrous tax cuts the rich 'job producers' who are 'the life blood of our economy' have enjoyed over the past decade would have resulted in them creating more jobs instead of laying people off.
The reality is that 'The Rich' have not been providing jobs, Lista, not even while all these Bush tax cuts were in effect. Because tax cuts don't create jobs, they create dividends that make 'The Rich' more rich.
You might want to look at the actual real numbers, which show that over the past thirty years 'The Rich' have gotten even richer as they enjoyed more and more tax cuts, at the same time the middle class and the poor have gotten even poorer.
I don't have the energy to indulge in circular arguments that aren't based in rock solid factual reality so I think what I'm going to do here is excuse myself unless comments are backed up with rock solid real verifiable factual facts. Glad to see you back and all Lista, but I have to use what I've got wisely, and for me that's the best way to do it.
So basically what I'm saying is that if you have proof that lower taxes means 'The Rich' create jobs for the rest of us who depend on them to be the 'life blood of our economy', then please reference it. I'd like to see numbers that show that the Bush tax cuts resulted in 'job creators' creating more jobs over the past 20 years, and then I'd like an explanation (if those tax cuts did indeed create more jobs) of why suddenly there aren't any more jobs (since the tax cuts were supposed to make them create more jobs) and why we have to cut taxes for them even more.
Have the billions of dollars in tax subsidies received by oil companies annually resulted in more jobs or lower gas prices?
It would not do for me to ask for facts and numbers to back up statements without providing some of my own; thus here is the link and a clip from the article. It goes into great detail analyzing tax rates and their relationship to the economy: __________________________________ http://www.businessinsider.com/history-of-tax-rates?op=1#ixzz2NvAdMnuS
Thanks to the Tax Foundation and other sources, we've analyzed tax rates over the past century, along with government revenue and spending over the same period. This analysis revealed a lot of surprising conclusions, including the following:
Today's government spending levels are indeed too high, at least relative to the average level of tax revenue the government has generated over the past 60 years. Unless Americans are willing to radically increase the amount of taxes they pay relative to GDP, government spending must be cut.
Today's income tax rates are strikingly low relative to the rates of the past century, especially for rich people. For most of the century, including some boom times, top-bracket income tax rates were much higher than they are today.
Contrary to what Republicans would have you believe, super-high tax rates on rich people do not appear to hurt the economy or make people lazy: During the 1950s and early 1960s, the top bracket income tax rate was over 90%--and the economy, middle-class, and stock market boomed.
Super-low tax rates on rich people also appear to be correlated with unsustainable sugar highs in the economy--brief, enjoyable booms followed by protracted busts. They also appear to be correlated with very high inequality. (For example, see the 1920s and now. ______________________
Satyavati, Whether or not History is on my Side is Debatable. If you talk to a Republican, then they will say that it is. If you talk to a Socialist or a Democrat, then they will say that it is not. Make no Mistake about it, though, those who the Democrats want to Tax ARE Job Producers. It takes more Money to Run a Business, than to Run a House Hold, so Naturally those who Own Businesses are going to have extra Money. If they do not, then they will not be able to Run their Businesses.
In order for the Private Sector to Survive and Thrive, though, they need two things, not only one. They Need Reasonable Tax Rates and Also Reasonable Freedom from Excessive Regulation.
"Unless Americans are willing to radically increase the amount of taxes they pay relative to GDP, government spending must be cut."
I agree, so let's make the Cuts. Don't you get it, Satyavati, if Republicans do not Agree with all of the Massive Spending that's going on, then they are not going to give you the Tax Increases Necessary in order to Fund them.
Offer a little more of a Compromise and Perhaps the Republicans will be more willing to Work with you, yet the Democrats will not Make the Necessary Cuts, so the Republicans are Holding their Ground. Unfortunately, that is sort of how Politics Works and Neither the Republicans, nor the Democrats can have everything that they want.
Perhaps yall might want to peruse the numbers I posted above.
Today's income tax rates are strikingly low relative to the rates of the past century, especially for rich people. For most of the century, including some boom times, top-bracket income tax rates were much higher than they are today.
Contrary to what Republicans would have you believe, super-high tax rates on rich people do not appear to hurt the economy or make people lazy: During the 1950s and early 1960s, the top bracket income tax rate was over 90%--and the economy, middle-class, and stock market boomed.
You know, Satyavati, I have seen Numbers similar to the ones that you are talking about and I am not entirely arguing with you about the fact that Economies can and have Handled Higher Taxes, yet you have not really read my Response, in which I was talking about Regulations and not just Taxes and about the Fact that Republicans do not Agree with the Present Refusal of the Democrats to make Spending Cuts.
If Democrats really want to Increase Taxes, then they are going to have to come up with a Budget Plan that both Parties can agree on. I believe that this is the True cause of the Stale Mate. Taxes is just one Piece of a very Complicated Debate in which if there is no Compromise, then nothing is going to be Accomplished.
The Fact that Republicans are Going to Grant Tax Hikes in Order to Fund all the Things that the Uncompromising Democrats want is where the Fantasy Lies. I suppose that you are also free to carry on with your fantasy as well.
You are Over Looking one Minor Detail, Satyavati. For the most Part, Demand doesn't care where the Demanded Products come from, so if it is cheaper to Produce the Demanded Products Over Sees, then that is what the Producers are going to do.
Come to think of it, there is another Detail too. If the Job Producers can figure out a way to do things Cheaper without Labor, such as with Computers, Machines and Robotics, then this will effect the Demand vs. Job Ratio. So you see, this is a Complicated Problem that can not be Over Simplified and Reduced to "Only One Thing".
This is the Reason why Low or High Taxes can not be viewed as the Only Factor either and it explains why Statistical Numbers do not always Bend in the way either Party expects them to.
Z-man, I Think that the part of the Work Force that is Democratic has a "Victim Mentality" in relation to how Workers are Treated by Employees and this is not at all different from the "Persecution Mentality" that Satyavati was talking about in relation to the Church.
I'm not really presenting this as an Argument because I have already stated that I think that such Arguments are Weak. I am only pointing it out because it is a Hypocrisy in that those who Accuse of "Persecution Mentality" are Guilty of the Same.
I also think that Super-High Tax Rates, coupled with High Regulations may not Necessarily make People "Lazy", as Satyavati suggested, but just less Motivated to do Business in America. Some will Move their Businesses over seas and some will decide to be a part of the Work Force, rather than opening a New Business of their Own.
"Laziness" is not the Issue. Those who Move Over Seas are not Lazy, just Making Different Business Decisions and those who decide to Work for someone else, rather than starting their Own Business have just decided that it is not worth the Risk in order to strive for a Reward that is likely to be quite Small or in the case of not making it as a Business, then there is no Reward at all.
A Decision to not do a certain thing doesn't have to be the Result of "Laziness". There are so many other Factors at Play.
Here is another Factor. I tell you, there are so many Factors, that New Ones just keep coming to Mind. Price has an Effect on Demand. High Taxes and Regulations have an Effect on Prices and therefore also on Demand and this will also Result in an Effect on the Economy. So you see, this can not be Reduced to "Only One Thing".
Also, the Growth of an Economy that is Stimulated by Low Taxes is Gradual and Long Term and this is why History does not Produce the Immediate Positive Numbers that the Democrats are looking for on the Graphs. It takes time for New Entrepreneurs to Build New Businesses.
My basic position is if you work hard and come by your wealth honestly you've done nothing morally wrong but for some reason others have a problem with your wealth/success most likely along the lines of they feel parts of your wealth need to be redistributed to others. It's never quite put this way though, it's always we need to raise revenues to tackle the debt and deficit. I say and maintain Obama's position on the wealthy goes deeper than this.
Seen some arguments elsewhere about the 'value' of work: say the maintenance guy fixes a glitch in a huge production line, saves the company $1 million in lost sales. He makes $30 an hour. The president of the company, a CEO, earns the typical 300x that, or $ 9,000 an hour. The CEO screws up and buys another company which goes bankrupt losing $850 million. He is terminated with a golden parachute of $600 million. So, if you ponder facts and figures, the 'value' of work is important in how one views 'earning' ...and can leave a rather bitter taste. Or, you can do it the hard way and inherit it like the Walton family of WalMart fame. Sure, its all honest. It just smells bad.
Yes, Z, Obama is all about Redistributing the Wealth and yet BB also makes some really good Points. Is it really Moral to become Highly Wealthy while Paying those who made you so such Low Wages? Personally, I think that Profit Sharing makes more sense and this is why I am a Republican, but not a Libertarian.
Well Profit Sharing may not be a Libertarian Idea, at least not any form of it that is Coerced by the Government, yet I'm not a Libertarian and what's more, I can be a bit of a Moderate, at least when someone other then Obama is in Office. Obama, though, causes me to side more with those who believe in the Opposite Extreme, for I find him to be much farther Left then I could ever live with.
It is best when Profit Sharing is done out of someone's Free Will, rather than Coerced, yet since this doesn't always happen, allowing Progressive Tax, rather than Flat Tax helps to make up for it and this is why I rather Strongly disagree with the more Extreme Republican Idea of the Flat Tax.
It is not Possible to Discover what is true over all by looking at any single person's Life. I think that it is mainly the Unions that cause Higher Pay, yet Government Involvement in the Medical Profession does not result in higher pay. That's what I've heard anyway.
I'm not Talking about you, Satyavati. I'm just Talking in General and all I said was "It is not Possible to Discover what is True over all by looking at a Single Person's Life." That means that for you just to talk about what is happening with you personally isn't an Adequate Argument and Actually, if you live in a Right to Work State, that may be the very thing that explains why Government Workers are not Over Paid in you State.
RE: "Your maintenance guy BB making 30 bucks an hour imo that's not bad." No, that's not bad. The guys I based it on had proficiency in HVAC, plumbing, electrical and trouble-shooting. That would include OT pay. Example: I would get a plant call on Christmas Eve, meet the maint dude at the lab and watch while he diagnosed a 12 hp inline pump intermittant shutdown, pulled it out, replaced some parts and got things going again. Our CEO was off with his family skiing at Sun Valley. Pretty common in industry. Made the CEO look a lot better than he was, by the way. But, that is why $9000 an hour is a bit high, IMO.
Bus drivers, around here anyway they get paid extremely well imo. You see the whole problem with Communism and socialism is how much money should a bus driver make? He should get paid well, very well, don't get me wrong but he shouldn't get paid as much as a brain surgeon or some smart lad who invents the latest smartphone and revolutionizes the world. I mean there comes a point...
And at the same time that a guy I've known for 25+ years has taken me off his FB related to an issue where I intimated that a background check for firearms wasn't REALLY an infringement of rights....
at the exact same time, I tell you...
...in North Dakota the Senate has voted to ENTIRELY strip women of their right to reproductive self-determination EVEN IN CASES OF RAPE OR INCEST... and to make certain types of birth control (as well as in vitro fertilization) illegal.
Soooooo....
....a background check is a violation of your rights but having your reproductive self determination taken away isn't?
Satyavati, Unions Keep Wages High. I'm really surprised that you don't seem to realize this and Government Workers are in General Paid quite well, at least they used to be. Perhaps this is changing.
I don't claim to be an expert on the Subject. It's just that I'm not going to Assume that things are other then they once were just because one person tells me that this is not true for her, because I have no way of knowing without Study, whether or not your situation is the Exception, rather then the rule.
I did not say, Satyavati, that YOU are Over Paid. Why is it that you assume that every Generalized Statement that is made Applies Specifically to YOU?
If you were not Making an Argument, than I guess my Response would be, "Oh, Ok, you took a Cut in Pay. So what's your Point?" If you have no Point, than I suppose, neither do I.
You do have the Right to "Reproductive Self Determination", Satyavati. Use Birth Control. It's not Illegal and even if "Certain Types" of it were made Illegal, this would never be all Inclusive.
Lessee here- Registering guns is government intrustion (despite ongoing massacres) Recommending healthy food is a government intrusion (though obesity is a health problem) Regulating industrial waste is a government intrusion (though it eliminates toxic landfills in your neighborhood) Taxing very wealthy folks is a goverment intrusion (but sales taxes on poor folks is fine) Drones spying on us is government intrusion (maybe, never been done, though) ..yet, legislating what pregnant women can or cannot do, establishing abortion police, jailing physicians and nurses, even women who have been raped, even pre-teen victims of incest, is NOT government intrusion?
"Recommending" Healthy Food Choices is not Government Intrusion, yet legislating it is. There is a Reason for the 2nd Amendment. It's a Deterrent from Excessive Power given to the Government. Environmental Regulations Need to be done on a Cost Benefit Basis and too often they are not.
Sales Tax effects everyone, not just the poor, though I do agree more with you on this one, than on your other Points. It's just that all things need to be kept in Balance and sometimes Taxing the Job Producers takes a toll on the Economy.
Giving Women the Right to Choose whether or not to Kill their Babies is no more a Government Intrusion than giving the General Public the "Right" to commit Homicide. Just because calling Abortion Murder is a Taboo, this does not Change the Facts and mentioning the Rape Victim is nothing more than Emotionalizing the Issue, for this is a very Low Percentage of the Cases and I doubt if anyone would ever actually put a Victim of Rape and Incest in Jail for having an Abortion.
Really BB. I once thought that you were a Moderate Democrat, yet really you are not and it would appear that you are no more effected by the Arguments that I've delivered in the past than any of the others. You are caught up in the Same Broken Record.
The Cost Benefit Analysis may be the very thing that separates me from the Democrats. I agree that yes, we should protect the Environment, but at What Cost? Economy is just as important as Environment and both need to be weighed against the other.
Obesity is a Problem, yet should we really make it a Government Problem? I think that this should be between each individual and their Insurance Companies.
The Killing of Innocent Children is a Big Problem, yet some would consider the risk of Government Take over a Problem just as serious.
What are the Cost Benefit Factors relating to Income Tax and Sales Tax? Unfortunately, Republicans view these Costs and Benefits differently than the Democrats do.
The Costs and Benefits of Allowing or not Allowing Abortion is also Controversial, yet if you View the Unborn as something that is insignificant and not yet Human, then this is going to color your Evaluation of the Cost Benefit Factors relating to this issue.
Nothing that you have said in your Comment, BB, reflects any consideration of the Costs and Benefits relating to any of the Issues.
'There is a Reason for the 2nd Amendment. It's a Deterrent from Excessive Power given to the Government.' ..there was: "A well-regulated militia being necessary.." the US consitution says not a word about deterent from excessive power. But the US consitution DOES state that treason against the US shall consist only in levying war against them. As regards "Really BB. I once thought that you were a Moderate Democrat, yet really you are not and it would appear that you are no more effected by the Arguments that I've delivered in the past than any of the others. You are caught up in the Same Broken Record." That is a simple ad hominum, I could say the same about you, but I'm not into insulting folks..just laying out the facts and how I interpet them. Sadly, "you are no more effected by the Arguments that I've delivered" ..I am, and because of what I've read on right wing blogs, my moderate stance has shifted more liberal. You can probably understand, if you get hammered constantly by the left, it pushes you more to the right... right?
"You can probably understand, if you get hammered constantly by the left, it pushes you more to the right...right?"
Only when they are Irrational and Rude, yet even then, I try and Push those emotions aside, because I do not Believe that the Real Truth can be found that way.
Sorry if I came across as insulting, yet I really think that you are capable of presenting stronger arguments at times and when you just sound like a Typical Democrat it disappoints me because I know that you are smart and can do better than that when you try and that my Friend is not an Insult, but a Complement.
Well, Lista, some arguments are strong, some weak, some just observations. Were I writing for a grant, patent or new job, I'd spend more time and state things in a more positive manner. As we know, in the blogosphere there is much posturing and 'deaf ears': we might paraphrase Mark 4 regarding seed falling along the wayside, stoney ground and in the thorns if we were promulgating a message. The best we can do is explain our views, how we got them and why we have them..providing links and references, IMO, adds to and reinforces such. To just state an opinion, to prosetylize, is very common: and consequently not 'strong' either. With respect to sales tax, say on food/clothing (and most of those taxes are state/local) a family of 4 with an income of $15000 a year will be hit much harder than a family of 4 with an income of $1 million a year. Because food/clothing are not options it becomes a compulsory tax and a very regressive one. Registering and tracking gun ownership is akin to what we do with our automobiles..it affects the 2nd Amendment in no way, however we interpet that amendment, unless one has a stolen weapon. I suppose that even with registration, psychopaths and criminals will continue their merry way...but why do nothing at all?
There is no Tax on Food, BB. Perhaps there shouldn't be any on Clothing either. There are already Laws on the Books in relation to the Registering of Guns. I don't think that the Common Consensus is to do nothing at all. That's just the Nature of Debates on the Web, which consists mostly of Extremists reacting to Extremists. I've been Trying really hard to stay away from that lately.
Montana has that. Signs that say SPEED LIMIT- Reasonable & Proper. Kinka neat. The 85 year lady going along in her old Ford Fairlane, the drunk cowboy going along in his hi-rise pickup, some teenage tourists on bicycles and a 35 ton logging truck late to weigh-in. Best to stay on the sidelines up there in Big Sky Country....keep an eye out for Grizzlies...
Many times you see signs posted on some major roads saying SPEED LIMIT 30 MPH which many experts say is deliberately artificially low so as to garner as many summonses as possible. Probably in many cases 40-45 is better and yes more reasonable and I'm not talking about driving through a residential neighborhood.
North of town there is a seven mile downhill with a grade that requires truckers to gear down and use compression braking. There are also five runaway truck turn outs. Speed limit 55. A schoolbus driver was stopped at 60, sued and the state upped the limit to 60. Of course with trucks lumbering along at 15, unless you are a native, you are going to slam into one. Z-Man, you'd like GOP Idaho: they just passed legislation upping the weight limits on trucks from 40 tons to 63 tons. Odd, because the state patrol and all the trucking firms thought it was terribly stupid. No money spent on highways, we have cowtrails...but boy, we got biggie-sized trucks!
OK your roads there in Idaho are different than here in Westchester County. Here's an example of what I'm talking about: when I drove the van for the wholesale flower shop I was driving along 117 in Bedford Hills soon to enter Katonah and bear in mind it's basically a straight road and so the sign says 45MPH at one point and then for no apparent reason another sign just downaways says 30 and I got a summons and had to appear in court one day in the village hall there where they basically have an arbitrator sitting at a table getting most of us to agree to pleading guilty in return for a reduction of points. There were alot of us there that day, it's a big business and a racket imo. There are speedtraps ole brother!
Yeah, I was stopped for going over the limit twice in one day back in the midwest. The first place was speeding up as a I left a little town and the little town guy got me. The other was on some highway with no speed limit signs that I could see. Back in the day, I got stopped in Montana and the trooper collected $5 on the spot for 'excessive speed causing harm to the environment'. Probably how they made their donut money. One time, two old folks were out front of me going uphill, blocking both lanes by going 25 in a 35 Zone. In an uncharacteristic fit of road rage, I found an opening and zipped through, which took me up to 50. Local Law chased me all the way up the hill until I found a place to stop-McDonalds. 50 kids staring out the window, gumballs flashing and he gets on his loud speaker, "Don't move-keep your hands on the wheel where I can see them" Geez, ya'd think they just netted Dillenger.
Sequester Planned Parenthood?
ReplyDeleteSome people sure hope so, and others want NPR defunded. Licking
their fiscal chops. At $360M and
$150M, though, the real savings
would be to eliminate one of the
stealth squadrons, loaded with $150M each F-22s. And PP and
NPR will continue from private funding where most of their money
comes from to start with. But...
think of the savings of eliminating the Yonkers red light
cameras...zounds!
Let's remember Obama was behind the original concept of the sequester to force Congress' hand on budget matters. A pro-choice president sequestering Planned Parenthood? in Republican dreams.
ReplyDeleteHey BB ya got me looking at that Yonkers Ghost Investigators site. They pay their own way and do their stuff on their own personal time and dime. Don't seem too professional though, I mean there are so many normal explanations for seeing a traveling orb of light ya know?
ReplyDeleteYa know, Z-Man I had some ghost trouble with my TV last week: the remote wouldn't turn it off. So, I pressed real hard and pointed everywhere north. It finally went off. I put down the remote...and
ReplyDeletethe TV came back on. Do Yonkers
Dan Akroyd and Bill Murray make
house calls?
My DVD player's been acting real weird at times too. All you wanna do is entertain yourself after a sucky day at work and you can't even do that. I was reading just now the Left is beginning to go after Bob Woodward.
ReplyDeleteI heard that about Bob Woodward, too, no one is safe from the wrath of the progressives.
ReplyDeleteI thought you might do a special blog today for the Pope's last day.
I really wouldn't know what to say besides what I've already said. I now get the Mobile Web on my new TracFone and saw the White House is differing with Woodward's account of who's behind the sequester. When all is said and done I'll take the veteran Woodward's word for it. You know even a few years back when I saw Woodward on TV a few times I said to myself he's too honest, someday he's gonna say something to piss off the Left.
ReplyDeleteSince this is kinda an abortion blog too you can read on Lohud.com about the recent death of a young Westchester County teacher who died after undergoing a very late-term abortion in Maryland. A recap: she was about 33 weeks pregnant (!!!) and learned a couple weeks before the fetus as we call it had some sort of anomaly so she went to the suburbs of DC and Dr. Leroy Carhart of Nebraska performed the four-day act involving prenatal infanticide. Shortly after that she bled to death in a hotel room and Carhart couldn't be reached by the hospital during her ordeal. Pro-lifers as usual are using the wrong tack here saying he didn't provide enough care and followup after the procedure as if the lifers are now down with such procedures if they're done safely enough. Now I had thought although I'm not a lawyer that an abortion on a perfectly viable fetus at such a late stage and that's handicapped is still murder in the eyes of the law and the other thought occured to me this young teacher would still be alive today if she had simply delivered the child even with the disability. I searched for this topic by going to Lohud.com and typed in the key words "teacher abortion death" in their search engine. As tragic as a disabled child may be that's still a part of Life and I think what went down here was far worse morally and in every other way than simply delivering a handicapped infant. What are your thoughts?
ReplyDeleteThere are too many variables here I don't know the answers to and besides that I will not be judging on morality.
ReplyDeleteShe made an informed decision. From what I read, she had an amniotic fluid embolus and DIC. You can equally have either of those things following a c-section. I didn't see anything outlining what kind of anomaly was serious enough for her to make a decision at 33 weeks. My feeling was that it was mostly likely quite considerable; she apparently had been quite all right with being pregnant for 33 weeks; she didn't change her mind because the sun decided to shine one day.
People will take this and make it into all kinds of bullshit or what have you.
Abortion involves risks including death. Equally does a c-section, a tummy tuck, a gastric bypass, a knee replacement; any invasive procedure.
You make the decision that the benefit of having whatever procedure done outweighs the risks.
Barring outright error, negligence, or malpractice, none of which were mentioned, you pays your price and you takes your chances.
And no, I am not getting into morality and what have you. You have no idea what sort of 'anomaly' made her make such a decision, and until you do, you're going on fantasies.
I'm going on simply what I read on lohud.com. On my last day off I had alot of spare time and remember seeing the headlines in the Journal News at work but didn't have time then to read it so I did all my reading about the case online the other day. Has nothing to do with my interpretations or "fantasies" but the gist I got from lohud was she found out about 2 weeks before the abortion that the fetus had some type of anomaly relating to seizures so again the article seemed to be saying because of this she chose not to bring such a child into the world. You know there has to be a dividing line marking civilization from barbarity and that line's been crossed. We've become a kind of land of atrocities lately what with Newtown and now some of these very late-term abortions. I was pondering too as a Catholic priest or any kind of priest or minister when a person dies during the commission of a grave mortal sin or shortly thereafter what do you say? not easy.
ReplyDeleteI also learned from the articles there are only about four late-term abortionists in this country and seems to me the msm makes them out to be heroes, types of pioneers and frontiersmen in the land of reproductive rights. I don't see any difference however in such very late cases between what Charles Manson had done to Sharon Tate's unborn child and what they're doing here. I mean you couldn't outright kill such a handicapped or anomalous fetus after it's been delivered so we still have this absurd location of the fetus standard. I've heard it said too that out of all the industrialized nations in the world the U.S. has one of the most radical and extreme social and legal policies regarding abortion. Anyway reading about all this it was all quite shocking:)
ReplyDeleteThey sequestered our airport. No more traffic control. Since I live
ReplyDeletenearby, I expect passenger jet traffic on the street out front...
& of course Obama bears no responsibility for this.
ReplyDeleteBoth Houses voted for it, and Obama
ReplyDeletesigned it in 2011. All responsible.
Supposed to reduce the debt.
You can't blame Republicans, BB. They've been too busy with decimating social justice and personal freedom to worry about things like jobs and the economy.
ReplyDeleteIn the 4 years since Obama was first elected, the stock market
ReplyDeletehas risen from 6,547 to an all
time record- 14,547. ..and the Koch brothers still think he is
bad for business.
14,547 isn't real. NASDAQ made that up because they're a tool of the left wing syndicate conspiracy to make it look like Obama isn't destroying all that's great and holy about America with his socialist agenda.
ReplyDelete(The Cult of Obama)
ReplyDeletePeople who can't admit facts because they disrupt their personal version of reality.
ReplyDeleteZ either has this sometimes or he just does it to cause outcry and commentation.
I really hope it's the latter.
"People who can't admit facts because they disrupt their personal version of reality."
ReplyDeleteActually that's not true, I gave Obama points for his Newtown speech remember? but realistically speaking the facts don't always go his way. Probably true of most presidents Saty, I mean wouldn't it be unusual if the facts always went his way or any president's way? Woodward has pointed out that Obama was behind the whole idea of the sequester in the first place so is this just Woodward's version of reality too?
Being behind an idea, as you know, is no guarantee of it becoming any kind of reality.
ReplyDeleteBoth parties voted for this; both take the responsibility for what we've got; Republicans continue to hold the country over the fire to protect half a million people who make more money than the rest of us.
Obama got his tax hikes on the Rich during the fiscal cliff days with John Boehner now he says they can pay just a little bit more. A wee bit more, just a pinch more...I keep coming back to he has a definite psychological fixation on the Rich.
ReplyDeleteAs do the Republicans, who are entirely prepared to roast 310 million people to keep those rich people rich.
ReplyDeleteNo matter how bad things get, no matter how awful the situation is for millions of people, the Republicans just keep preaching on how we need to protect those rich folk.
Who's fixated?
Obama is. I think the POV that we should tax the rich more is a valid one and I also think the conservative position that we shouldn't punish success through confiscatory taxation is also valid. We can have that conversation but Obama IS obsessed with the issue. That's pretty much approaching a psychological fact in his case:)
ReplyDeleteThe Republicans aren't fixated?
ReplyDeleteBeing willing to screw 310 million people to protect half a million rich people isn't fixated?
Maybe we can posit that they're both fixated. I think Obama needs to lay his cards on the table and say look I have a moral problem with wealth. It would explain more where he's coming from, would be more honest. Traditionally there have been some philosophers, Rawls, who seem to hold that position, that wealth in and of itself is somehow unethical if it's not redistributed in order to benefit the rest of society so why can't Obama be upfront about this? Are you saying Obama has no philosphical underpinnings on the issue, that it's just a little mathematical problem to him?
ReplyDeleteI'm saying that it bothers me that you don't ever seem to think that the Right is equally if not more so. And if at all compared I would say it's worse to be protecting half a million at the cost of 310 million than to be trying to help out 310 million by asking half a million to put up a little extra.
ReplyDeleteBut that's the thing, Boehner agreed to that little extra during the fiscal cliff talks remember? Obama should've been happy with that for the time being but he wants more revenue. Somebody gives you something and gets flak for it then you want more, many would call that a fixation.
ReplyDeleteI mean, numbers are numbers. The way I understand it, Ryan's budget doesn't balance anything, but DOES drop the tax rate on the most wealthy from 39 to 25. It also cuts deep into programs that benefit the poor.
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry, isn't there a pattern here?
Where are we going with this?
ReplyDeleteHere you have two totally polar opposite groups, the Republicans and the Democrats and I see no hope for common ground here. Republicans generally agree taxes should be lowered not raised and Democrats generally more often than not say they should be raised to produce revenue. Well that's like night and day, in a way it reminds me of the abortion debate and so the question becomes should Democrats move in the Republicans direction or should the Republicans move in the Democrats direction? I thought that's why we have two parties.
ReplyDeleteI never did understand why they used the Word Sequester. It doesn't fit with the Standard Definition of that Word. I still feel like I should look it up again and see if I can figure out exactly what they mean. I know that it refers to cuts and they have to do their Cuts somewhere, yet no matter what they choose. Somebody Screams. I mean, gee, they are even making a huge issue out of Closing the Post Office on Weekends. I guess they think that Cutting Major Medical Programs would be preferred.
ReplyDeletePlanned Parenthood is too much of a Pro-Choice Group and that which is Controversial should not be Funded by the Government. Instead, let those who agree with it make Voluntary Donations.
Come to Think of it, they are making a Huge Deal about the White House Tours as well and I have already heard of some of the big Money Guys offering to make Donations. Would Charging the Public be really such a Horrible Crime? Or again, would you prefer that they Cut something that is essential to our Lives? Just what part of America is in Serious Debt do people not Understand?
ReplyDeleteYeh, the NPR could also be Defunded. Since Government Funding of Media related stuff creates Bias, Private funding is better. At least then what ever Bias there may be will be coming from the Opinions of the Public and not the Government.
Ok, now I've Read the Comments. Abortion again, Huh? We've been over that a million times and all of the Regulars already know the positions of each other and I still agree with Z-man. All I want to add is that, believe it or not, there are those who will adopt Babies that have Handicaps, yet Pro-Choicers keep Ignoring the Adoption Option and pretending that it does not exist.
The Basic problem is that "Reproductive Rights" are too often Valued far above "the Right to Life". Once again, for the Millionth time, Politically Speaking, this issue is not about Morality, but about RIGHTS. It's also about Freedom, yet the Freedom of Who, the Mother, or the Baby?
BB,
Airports are Generally just a part of the Private Sector that the Government should not be involved in Funding. Private Airlines are going to do what they need to in order to Keep Things Safe or they will lose Business and yes, sometimes Private Sector things go out of Business. It is not the Government's Place to always step in and Prevent this from Happening.
Satyavati,
"Republicans continue to hold the country over the fire to protect half a million people who make more money than the rest of us."
Yes, they Protect the Job Producers. The fact that these are the Life Blood of our Economy is the Thing that Democrats just don't get.
Obama is Fixated on that which does not Work. Republicans are Fixated on something that has the Potential to help our Economy. Democrats and Socialists will say that Republicans are Protecting the Rich, yet in Reality, they are Protecting Jobs and the Economy. If "the Rich" can not Provide Jobs, then this hurts everyone, not just the Rich.
Lista,
ReplyDeleteEconomic history is not on your side. Half a million people are not the 'lifeblood of the economy' and they are not job producers.
If this were the case, we wouldn't be in this situation; the monstrous tax cuts the rich 'job producers' who are 'the life blood of our economy' have enjoyed over the past decade would have resulted in them creating more jobs instead of laying people off.
The reality is that 'The Rich' have not been providing jobs, Lista, not even while all these Bush tax cuts were in effect. Because tax cuts don't create jobs, they create dividends that make 'The Rich' more rich.
You might want to look at the actual real numbers, which show that over the past thirty years 'The Rich' have gotten even richer as they enjoyed more and more tax cuts, at the same time the middle class and the poor have gotten even poorer.
I don't have the energy to indulge in circular arguments that aren't based in rock solid factual reality so I think what I'm going to do here is excuse myself unless comments are backed up with rock solid real verifiable factual facts. Glad to see you back and all Lista, but I have to use what I've got wisely, and for me that's the best way to do it.
So basically what I'm saying is that if you have proof that lower taxes means 'The Rich' create jobs for the rest of us who depend on them to be the 'life blood of our economy', then please reference it. I'd like to see numbers that show that the Bush tax cuts resulted in 'job creators' creating more jobs over the past 20 years, and then I'd like an explanation (if those tax cuts did indeed create more jobs) of why suddenly there aren't any more jobs (since the tax cuts were supposed to make them create more jobs) and why we have to cut taxes for them even more.
ReplyDeleteHave the billions of dollars in tax subsidies received by oil companies annually resulted in more jobs or lower gas prices?
Thanks for providing some factual backup here.
Sat why don't we take ALL the money from the wealthy like have a rate of say 100%?
ReplyDeleteIt would not do for me to ask for facts and numbers to back up statements without providing some of my own; thus here is the link and a clip from the article. It goes into great detail analyzing tax rates and their relationship to the economy:
ReplyDelete__________________________________
http://www.businessinsider.com/history-of-tax-rates?op=1#ixzz2NvAdMnuS
Thanks to the Tax Foundation and other sources, we've analyzed tax rates over the past century, along with government revenue and spending over the same period.
This analysis revealed a lot of surprising conclusions, including the following:
Today's government spending levels are indeed too high, at least relative to the average level of tax revenue the government has generated over the past 60 years. Unless Americans are willing to radically increase the amount of taxes they pay relative to GDP, government spending must be cut.
Today's income tax rates are strikingly low relative to the rates of the past century, especially for rich people. For most of the century, including some boom times, top-bracket income tax rates were much higher than they are today.
Contrary to what Republicans would have you believe, super-high tax rates on rich people do not appear to hurt the economy or make people lazy: During the 1950s and early 1960s, the top bracket income tax rate was over 90%--and the economy, middle-class, and stock market boomed.
Super-low tax rates on rich people also appear to be correlated with unsustainable sugar highs in the economy--brief, enjoyable booms followed by protracted busts. They also appear to be correlated with very high inequality. (For example, see the 1920s and now.
______________________
Satyavati,
ReplyDeleteWhether or not History is on my Side is Debatable. If you talk to a Republican, then they will say that it is. If you talk to a Socialist or a Democrat, then they will say that it is not. Make no Mistake about it, though, those who the Democrats want to Tax ARE Job Producers. It takes more Money to Run a Business, than to Run a House Hold, so Naturally those who Own Businesses are going to have extra Money. If they do not, then they will not be able to Run their Businesses.
In order for the Private Sector to Survive and Thrive, though, they need two things, not only one. They Need Reasonable Tax Rates and Also Reasonable Freedom from Excessive Regulation.
"Unless Americans are willing to radically increase the amount of taxes they pay relative to GDP, government spending must be cut."
I agree, so let's make the Cuts. Don't you get it, Satyavati, if Republicans do not Agree with all of the Massive Spending that's going on, then they are not going to give you the Tax Increases Necessary in order to Fund them.
Offer a little more of a Compromise and Perhaps the Republicans will be more willing to Work with you, yet the Democrats will not Make the Necessary Cuts, so the Republicans are Holding their Ground. Unfortunately, that is sort of how Politics Works and Neither the Republicans, nor the Democrats can have everything that they want.
Sat are you saying the late Steve Jobs was not a jobs producer?
ReplyDeletePerhaps yall might want to peruse the numbers I posted above.
ReplyDeleteToday's income tax rates are strikingly low relative to the rates of the past century, especially for rich people. For most of the century, including some boom times, top-bracket income tax rates were much higher than they are today.
Contrary to what Republicans would have you believe, super-high tax rates on rich people do not appear to hurt the economy or make people lazy: During the 1950s and early 1960s, the top bracket income tax rate was over 90%--and the economy, middle-class, and stock market boomed.
Feel free to carry on with the fantasy, Lista... it's your imagination.
ReplyDeleteYou know, Satyavati, I have seen Numbers similar to the ones that you are talking about and I am not entirely arguing with you about the fact that Economies can and have Handled Higher Taxes, yet you have not really read my Response, in which I was talking about Regulations and not just Taxes and about the Fact that Republicans do not Agree with the Present Refusal of the Democrats to make Spending Cuts.
ReplyDeleteIf Democrats really want to Increase Taxes, then they are going to have to come up with a Budget Plan that both Parties can agree on. I believe that this is the True cause of the Stale Mate. Taxes is just one Piece of a very Complicated Debate in which if there is no Compromise, then nothing is going to be Accomplished.
The Fact that Republicans are Going to Grant Tax Hikes in Order to Fund all the Things that the Uncompromising Democrats want is where the Fantasy Lies. I suppose that you are also free to carry on with your fantasy as well.
You also did not Answer Z-man's Question.
Sat are you saying that Bill Gates never created jobs?
ReplyDeleteOnly one thing creates jobs and that is DEMAND.
ReplyDeleteIf there is no DEMAND there is no job.
You are Over Looking one Minor Detail, Satyavati. For the most Part, Demand doesn't care where the Demanded Products come from, so if it is cheaper to Produce the Demanded Products Over Sees, then that is what the Producers are going to do.
ReplyDeleteCome to think of it, there is another Detail too. If the Job Producers can figure out a way to do things Cheaper without Labor, such as with Computers, Machines and Robotics, then this will effect the Demand vs. Job Ratio. So you see, this is a Complicated Problem that can not be Over Simplified and Reduced to "Only One Thing".
This is the Reason why Low or High Taxes can not be viewed as the Only Factor either and it explains why Statistical Numbers do not always Bend in the way either Party expects them to.
I think some people just have a moral problem with Wealth and I think this is what drives their positions and the discussion.
ReplyDeleteZ-man,
ReplyDeleteI Think that the part of the Work Force that is Democratic has a "Victim Mentality" in relation to how Workers are Treated by Employees and this is not at all different from the "Persecution Mentality" that Satyavati was talking about in relation to the Church.
I'm not really presenting this as an Argument because I have already stated that I think that such Arguments are Weak. I am only pointing it out because it is a Hypocrisy in that those who Accuse of "Persecution Mentality" are Guilty of the Same.
I also think that Super-High Tax Rates, coupled with High Regulations may not Necessarily make People "Lazy", as Satyavati suggested, but just less Motivated to do Business in America. Some will Move their Businesses over seas and some will decide to be a part of the Work Force, rather than opening a New Business of their Own.
"Laziness" is not the Issue. Those who Move Over Seas are not Lazy, just Making Different Business Decisions and those who decide to Work for someone else, rather than starting their Own Business have just decided that it is not worth the Risk in order to strive for a Reward that is likely to be quite Small or in the case of not making it as a Business, then there is no Reward at all.
A Decision to not do a certain thing doesn't have to be the Result of "Laziness". There are so many other Factors at Play.
Here is another Factor. I tell you, there are so many Factors, that New Ones just keep coming to Mind. Price has an Effect on Demand. High Taxes and Regulations have an Effect on Prices and therefore also on Demand and this will also Result in an Effect on the Economy. So you see, this can not be Reduced to "Only One Thing".
Also, the Growth of an Economy that is Stimulated by Low Taxes is Gradual and Long Term and this is why History does not Produce the Immediate Positive Numbers that the Democrats are looking for on the Graphs. It takes time for New Entrepreneurs to Build New Businesses.
ReplyDeleteMy basic position is if you work hard and come by your wealth honestly you've done nothing morally wrong but for some reason others have a problem with your wealth/success most likely along the lines of they feel parts of your wealth need to be redistributed to others. It's never quite put this way though, it's always we need to raise revenues to tackle the debt and deficit. I say and maintain Obama's position on the wealthy goes deeper than this.
ReplyDeleteSeen some arguments elsewhere about the 'value' of work: say the maintenance guy fixes a glitch in
ReplyDeletea huge production line, saves the company $1 million in lost sales.
He makes $30 an hour. The president of the company, a CEO, earns the typical 300x that, or
$ 9,000 an hour. The CEO screws up and buys another company which goes
bankrupt losing $850 million. He
is terminated with a golden parachute of $600 million. So, if you ponder facts and figures, the
'value' of work is important in
how one views 'earning' ...and can leave a rather bitter taste. Or,
you can do it the hard way and inherit it like the Walton family of WalMart fame. Sure, its all honest. It just smells bad.
Yes, Z, Obama is all about Redistributing the Wealth and yet BB also makes some really good Points. Is it really Moral to become Highly Wealthy while Paying those who made you so such Low Wages? Personally, I think that Profit Sharing makes more sense and this is why I am a Republican, but not a Libertarian.
ReplyDeleteI wasn't aware that profit sharing was a Republican-approved activity. "Sharing profits" sounds suspiciously Socialist.
ReplyDeleteWell Profit Sharing may not be a Libertarian Idea, at least not any form of it that is Coerced by the Government, yet I'm not a Libertarian and what's more, I can be a bit of a Moderate, at least when someone other then Obama is in Office. Obama, though, causes me to side more with those who believe in the Opposite Extreme, for I find him to be much farther Left then I could ever live with.
ReplyDeleteIt is best when Profit Sharing is done out of someone's Free Will, rather than Coerced, yet since this doesn't always happen, allowing Progressive Tax, rather than Flat Tax helps to make up for it and this is why I rather Strongly disagree with the more Extreme Republican Idea of the Flat Tax.
Your maintenance guy BB making 30 bucks an hour imo that's not bad.
ReplyDeleteI'd like to point out that leaving the private sector and becoming a state employee cost me $15K in annual salary.
ReplyDeleteJust for all those who think that government employees do so much better than everyone else.
It is not Possible to Discover what is true over all by looking at any single person's Life. I think that it is mainly the Unions that cause Higher Pay, yet Government Involvement in the Medical Profession does not result in higher pay. That's what I've heard anyway.
ReplyDeleteNorth Carolina is a right to work state.
ReplyDeleteI was not a union member. In fact just mentioning the word could get you disciplined to the point of termination.
I lost $15K purely by moving from the private sector to the government payroll. My job title remains the same.
I'm not Talking about you, Satyavati. I'm just Talking in General and all I said was "It is not Possible to Discover what is True over all by looking at a Single Person's Life." That means that for you just to talk about what is happening with you personally isn't an Adequate Argument and Actually, if you live in a Right to Work State, that may be the very thing that explains why Government Workers are not Over Paid in you State.
ReplyDeleteUh.. would you like to explain what being in a right to work state has to do with the salaries of government employees?
ReplyDeleteAnd we are not overpaid, we are not even competitively paid, Lista, we are grossly underpaid.
And I was not positing an argument, I was just pointing it out.
Do you have a point you're going for or are you just playing ping pong here?
RE: "Your maintenance guy BB making 30 bucks an hour imo that's not bad." No, that's not bad. The guys I based it on had proficiency in HVAC, plumbing, electrical and
ReplyDeletetrouble-shooting. That would include OT pay. Example: I would get a plant call on Christmas Eve,
meet the maint dude at the lab and watch while he diagnosed a 12 hp
inline pump intermittant shutdown,
pulled it out, replaced some parts and got things going again. Our CEO
was off with his family skiing at
Sun Valley. Pretty common in industry. Made the CEO look a lot
better than he was, by the way.
But, that is why $9000 an hour is
a bit high, IMO.
Bus drivers, around here anyway they get paid extremely well imo. You see the whole problem with Communism and socialism is how much money should a bus driver make? He should get paid well, very well, don't get me wrong but he shouldn't get paid as much as a brain surgeon or some smart lad who invents the latest smartphone and revolutionizes the world. I mean there comes a point...
ReplyDeleteI had this argument with Beth once and as in so many other instances she just didn't get it.
ReplyDeleteSocialism doesn't preach equality of outcome. It does preach equality of opportunity.
And at the same time that a guy I've known for 25+ years has taken me off his FB related to an issue where I intimated that a background check for firearms wasn't REALLY an infringement of rights....
ReplyDeleteat the exact same time, I tell you...
...in North Dakota the Senate has voted to ENTIRELY strip women of their right to reproductive self-determination EVEN IN CASES OF RAPE OR INCEST... and to make certain types of birth control (as well as in vitro fertilization) illegal.
Soooooo....
....a background check is a violation of your rights but having your reproductive self determination taken away isn't?
Yeah... like he said... I'm too liberal...
Satyavati,
ReplyDeleteUnions Keep Wages High. I'm really surprised that you don't seem to realize this and Government Workers are in General Paid quite well, at least they used to be. Perhaps this is changing.
I don't claim to be an expert on the Subject. It's just that I'm not going to Assume that things are other then they once were just because one person tells me that this is not true for her, because I have no way of knowing without Study, whether or not your situation is the Exception, rather then the rule.
I did not say, Satyavati, that YOU are Over Paid. Why is it that you assume that every Generalized Statement that is made Applies Specifically to YOU?
If you were not Making an Argument, than I guess my Response would be, "Oh, Ok, you took a Cut in Pay. So what's your Point?" If you have no Point, than I suppose, neither do I.
You do have the Right to "Reproductive Self Determination", Satyavati. Use Birth Control. It's not Illegal and even if "Certain Types" of it were made Illegal, this would never be all Inclusive.
Lessee here-
ReplyDeleteRegistering guns is government
intrustion (despite ongoing massacres)
Recommending healthy food is a
government intrusion (though obesity is a health problem)
Regulating industrial waste is
a government intrusion (though
it eliminates toxic landfills
in your neighborhood)
Taxing very wealthy folks is a
goverment intrusion (but sales taxes on poor folks is fine)
Drones spying on us is government
intrusion (maybe, never been done, though) ..yet, legislating what
pregnant women can or cannot do,
establishing abortion police, jailing physicians and nurses,
even women who have been raped,
even pre-teen victims of incest, is NOT government intrusion?
"Recommending" Healthy Food Choices is not Government Intrusion, yet legislating it is. There is a Reason for the 2nd Amendment. It's a Deterrent from Excessive Power given to the Government. Environmental Regulations Need to be done on a Cost Benefit Basis and too often they are not.
ReplyDeleteSales Tax effects everyone, not just the poor, though I do agree more with you on this one, than on your other Points. It's just that all things need to be kept in Balance and sometimes Taxing the Job Producers takes a toll on the Economy.
Giving Women the Right to Choose whether or not to Kill their Babies is no more a Government Intrusion than giving the General Public the "Right" to commit Homicide. Just because calling Abortion Murder is a Taboo, this does not Change the Facts and mentioning the Rape Victim is nothing more than Emotionalizing the Issue, for this is a very Low Percentage of the Cases and I doubt if anyone would ever actually put a Victim of Rape and Incest in Jail for having an Abortion.
Really BB. I once thought that you were a Moderate Democrat, yet really you are not and it would appear that you are no more effected by the Arguments that I've delivered in the past than any of the others. You are caught up in the Same Broken Record.
The Cost Benefit Analysis may be the very thing that separates me from the Democrats. I agree that yes, we should protect the Environment, but at What Cost? Economy is just as important as Environment and both need to be weighed against the other.
ReplyDeleteObesity is a Problem, yet should we really make it a Government Problem? I think that this should be between each individual and their Insurance Companies.
The Killing of Innocent Children is a Big Problem, yet some would consider the risk of Government Take over a Problem just as serious.
What are the Cost Benefit Factors relating to Income Tax and Sales Tax? Unfortunately, Republicans view these Costs and Benefits differently than the Democrats do.
The Costs and Benefits of Allowing or not Allowing Abortion is also Controversial, yet if you View the Unborn as something that is insignificant and not yet Human, then this is going to color your Evaluation of the Cost Benefit Factors relating to this issue.
Nothing that you have said in your Comment, BB, reflects any consideration of the Costs and Benefits relating to any of the Issues.
'There is a Reason for the 2nd Amendment. It's a Deterrent from Excessive Power given to the Government.'
ReplyDelete..there was: "A well-regulated militia being necessary.." the
US consitution says not a word about deterent from excessive power. But the US consitution DOES
state that treason against the US shall consist only in levying war against them.
As regards "Really BB. I once thought that you were a Moderate Democrat, yet really you are not and it would appear that you are no more effected by the Arguments that I've delivered in the past than any of the others. You are caught up in the Same Broken Record." That is a simple ad hominum, I could say the same about you, but I'm not into insulting folks..just laying out
the facts and how I interpet them.
Sadly, "you are no more effected by the Arguments that I've delivered" ..I am, and because of what I've read on right wing blogs, my moderate stance has shifted more liberal. You can probably understand, if you get
hammered constantly by the left,
it pushes you more to the right...
right?
"You can probably understand, if you get hammered constantly by the left, it pushes you more to the right...right?"
ReplyDeleteOnly when they are Irrational and Rude, yet even then, I try and Push those emotions aside, because I do not Believe that the Real Truth can be found that way.
Sorry if I came across as insulting, yet I really think that you are capable of presenting stronger arguments at times and when you just sound like a Typical Democrat it disappoints me because I know that you are smart and can do better than that when you try and that my Friend is not an Insult, but a Complement.
Well, Lista, some arguments are strong, some weak, some just observations. Were I writing for
ReplyDeletea grant, patent or new job, I'd spend more time and state things
in a more positive manner. As we
know, in the blogosphere there is much posturing and 'deaf ears':
we might paraphrase Mark 4 regarding seed falling along the wayside, stoney ground and in the thorns if we were promulgating a
message. The best we can do is
explain our views, how we got them
and why we have them..providing links and references, IMO, adds
to and reinforces such. To just
state an opinion, to prosetylize,
is very common: and consequently
not 'strong' either.
With respect to sales tax, say
on food/clothing (and most of those taxes are state/local) a
family of 4 with an income of
$15000 a year will be hit much harder than a family of 4 with an
income of $1 million a year. Because food/clothing are not
options it becomes a compulsory
tax and a very regressive one.
Registering and tracking gun
ownership is akin to what we do with our automobiles..it affects the 2nd Amendment in no way, however we interpet that amendment,
unless one has a stolen weapon.
I suppose that even with registration, psychopaths and criminals will continue their merry way...but why do nothing at all?
People run red lights EVERY SINGLE DAY.
ReplyDeleteTherefore, we ought to get rid of red lights.
There is no Tax on Food, BB. Perhaps there shouldn't be any on Clothing either. There are already Laws on the Books in relation to the Registering of Guns. I don't think that the Common Consensus is to do nothing at all. That's just the Nature of Debates on the Web, which consists mostly of Extremists reacting to Extremists. I've been Trying really hard to stay away from that lately.
ReplyDeletePeople break posted speed limits EVERY SINGLE DAY.
ReplyDeleteTherefore, we ought to get rid of speed limits.
No but we should make those speed limits more reasonable.
ReplyDeleteMontana has that. Signs that say
ReplyDeleteSPEED LIMIT- Reasonable & Proper.
Kinka neat. The 85 year lady going along in her old Ford Fairlane, the drunk cowboy going along in his
hi-rise pickup, some teenage tourists on bicycles and a 35 ton
logging truck late to weigh-in. Best to stay on the sidelines up there in Big Sky Country....keep an eye out for Grizzlies...
what's unreasonable? and what criteria are you using to justify that response?
ReplyDeleteMany times you see signs posted on some major roads saying SPEED LIMIT 30 MPH which many experts say is deliberately artificially low so as to garner as many summonses as possible. Probably in many cases 40-45 is better and yes more reasonable and I'm not talking about driving through a residential neighborhood.
ReplyDeleteNorth of town there is a seven mile
ReplyDeletedownhill with a grade that requires truckers to gear down and use compression braking. There are also five runaway truck turn outs.
Speed limit 55. A schoolbus driver
was stopped at 60, sued and the state upped the limit to 60. Of course with trucks lumbering along at 15, unless you are a native, you are going to slam into one.
Z-Man, you'd like GOP Idaho: they
just passed legislation upping the
weight limits on trucks from 40 tons to 63 tons. Odd, because the
state patrol and all the trucking firms thought it was terribly stupid. No money spent on highways,
we have cowtrails...but boy, we got
biggie-sized trucks!
OK your roads there in Idaho are different than here in Westchester County. Here's an example of what I'm talking about: when I drove the van for the wholesale flower shop I was driving along 117 in Bedford Hills soon to enter Katonah and bear in mind it's basically a straight road and so the sign says 45MPH at one point and then for no apparent reason another sign just downaways says 30 and I got a summons and had to appear in court one day in the village hall there where they basically have an arbitrator sitting at a table getting most of us to agree to pleading guilty in return for a reduction of points. There were alot of us there that day, it's a big business and a racket imo. There are speedtraps ole brother!
ReplyDeleteYeah, I was stopped for going over the limit twice in one day back in the midwest. The first place was speeding up as a I left a little town and the little town guy got me. The other was on some highway with no speed limit signs that I could see. Back in the day, I got stopped in Montana and the trooper collected $5 on the spot for 'excessive speed causing harm to the environment'. Probably how they made their donut money.
ReplyDeleteOne time, two old folks were out
front of me going uphill, blocking
both lanes by going 25 in a 35 Zone. In an uncharacteristic fit
of road rage, I found an opening and zipped through, which took me up to 50. Local Law chased me all the way up the hill until I found a place to stop-McDonalds. 50 kids staring out the window, gumballs flashing and he gets on his loud speaker, "Don't move-keep your hands on the wheel where I can see them" Geez, ya'd think they just
netted Dillenger.
You know on some roads here you can actually get ticketed for driving too slow on some parkways and highways. Have the old folks pull that stuff here.
ReplyDelete